The Architectonics Of Judgment: A Comparative Linguistic And Rhetorical Analysis Of Divine Justice In The Risalat Al-Ghufran And The Divine Comedy

Abstract

This study addresses the "analytical gap" in previous comparative literature regarding Abu al-Ala al-Ma'arri’s Risalat al-Ghufran and Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy, moving beyond superficial thematic similarities to investigate how linguistic architecture functions as the core of theological judgment. The research problem centers on how Ma'arri’s "rhetoric of irony" serves skepticism while Dante’s "rhetoric of order" reinforces theological rationality, questioning the relationship between literary form and philosophical certainty. Consequently, the aim of the research is to demonstrate that stylistic choices—from rhymed prose and terza rima to complex metaphors—are deliberate philosophical decisions that reflect the divergent cultural and religious contexts of the East and West. By employing a methodology based on the comparative approach, structural analysis, and discourse analysis, the study explores language as a "foundational act" of world-building. The results reveal that Al-Ma'arri utilizes a deconstructive strategy, using irony and linguistic ambiguity to challenge orthodox certainties and highlight human limitations in understanding divine justice. In contrast, Dante employs a constructive strategy, utilizing a rigid lexical and rhythmic system to map a rational, ethical universe. The findings conclude that both authors navigate a creative tension between divine law and human emotion, proving that their specific stylistic evolutions—such as Dante’s use of the vernacular and Ma'arri’s classical complexity—are not merely decorative but are essential "architectures of judgment" that redefine the existential relationship between the human and the divine.